U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–204 

Calendar No. 321 

WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE 

NETWORK ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1753 

DECEMBER 8, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 2005 


congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

Calendar No. 321 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–204 

WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE NETWORK ACT 

DECEMBER 8, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 2005 

Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1753] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1753) to establish a unified national 

hazard alert system, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature 

of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 1753 is to create a national alert system that 

will build upon current alerting capabilities to provide alerts to the 

public across a variety of media technologies to protect public safety. The bill will provide for the development and administration of 

a unified alerting system that will allow Federal, State, tribal and 

local officials to provide alerts to their communities across a variety 

of communication technologies. The bill aims to ensure that an individual will receive an alert of a pending threat regardless of their 

location or the communication technologies in use. 

Additionally, as amended, the bill authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish, operate, 

and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that 

would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by 

the close of calendar year 2007. The system would include four 

components: an expanded and upgraded detection and warning sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:41 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR204.XXX SR204
2 

tem, a Federal-State tsunami hazard mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a modernization and upgrade program. In addition, the bill would direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the 

Indian Ocean. The bill would authorize $35 million for each of fiscal years 2006–2012 to carry out these activities. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

NATIONAL ALERTING PROGRAM

Current Alerting Programs 

Currently Federal, State, and local governments use a variety of 

mechanisms to alert the public to threats from natural hazards, 

man-made accidents, and terrorist incidents. Most prominent 

among the alerting mechanisms is the Emergency Alert System 

that utilizes cable and broadcast television and radio to rebroadcast 

alerts to the listening public. Additionally, NOAA operates the 

NOAA All-Hazards Radio program that includes over 900 radio 

transmitters across the United States that broadcast alerts to specially configured devices. 

Recently, many municipalities have begun operating their own 

alerting systems. These systems allow citizens to receive alerts 

over cell phones, email, and wireline communications from the government on events ranging from school closings to terrorist attacks. 

The wireless industry has also implemented a program that allows 

their customers to receive Amber Alerts as text messages over their 

cell phones. 

Limitations of Existing Programs 

Current alerting regimes suffer from 2 chief limitations: gaps in 

the penetration of the alerting capability both within and among 

communications technologies and the limited capability to target 

the alerts to a particular geographic region. 

The new alerting programs that are being fielded by municipalities require citizens to ‘‘opt-in’’ to the program. Even with the best 

education efforts, large segments of the population are unaware of 

the system and unable to receive alerts. For example in the National Capital region there are only approximately 50,000 subscribers to mobile wireless alerts in a region of approximately 4 

million people, most of whom own a wireless device and are very 

attuned to the threat of natural disasters and terrorist incidents. 

Similarly, although the NOAA All-Hazards Radio system broadcasts to over 98 percent of the population of the United States, only 

17 percent of households own a receiver. While there are a number 

of alerting mechanisms available to the public, because of coordination and implementation problems, there is not a comprehensive 

and reliable alerting ability for emergency managers. 

Beyond the difficulties associated with low penetration within affected populations, problems exist with some alerting tools not 

being able to target their alerts only to the population at risk. 

NOAA All-Hazard Radio, for example, sends alerts according to 

county boundaries. This causes significant problems when the 

county is very large and the threat is confined to a small geographic region in the county. It is particularly troublesome when 

the county is densely populated and large sections of the unaffected 

3 

population receive an alert. Traditional broadcast media only have 

the ability to provide an alert to all of their customers within their 

broadcast region. In addition, a significant problem develops when 

citizens begin to ignore the alerts because they are receiving numerous alerts that do not pertain to them. 

Tsunami Preparedness 

Tsunami are a fast-moving series of ocean waves generated by 

rapid, large-scale displacement of the seafloor which raises and/or 

lowers the water column above it. Such displacement is usually 

caused by submarine geologic activity such as volcanoes, earthquakes, or landslides. Variables affecting the size and power of tsunami include: the size and speed of the seafloor displacement, the 

depth of the water column above the displacement, the efficiency 

of the energy transfer from the earth’s crust to the water column, 

and the shape of the shoreline and the seafloor along the coast 

where the waves reach land. 

Tsunami can travel across open ocean at great speeds, sometimes 

over 600 miles per hour in very deep water. They can be only a few 

inches high and many miles long. As tsunami enter shallow water, 

their speed decreases and the wave height increases. This ‘‘shoaling 

effect’’ creates a larger, relatively slower wave that can cause massive damage in coastal areas and low-lying inland regions. Tsunami 

often appear as a rapidly moving tide, a series of breaking waves, 

or a bore wave (a step-like wave with a steep breaking front). Tsunami rarely cause the high, breaking waves which many people envision ‘‘tidal waves’’ look like. Behind the bore is a fast-moving 

flood that is capable of carrying extremely large and heavy pieces 

of debris. Strong tsunami-induced currents can lead to erosion of 

foundations around coastal structures. Finally, tsunami can result 

in significant loss of life. 

Providing sufficient warning is crucial for minimizing the loss of 

life due to tsunami. NOAA is responsible for coordinating tsunamirelated activities in the United States and works closely with the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) to provide, respectively, seismographic information and science and research capabilities. NOAA also represents 

the United States as a member of the International Tsunami 

Warning System in the Pacific, the only international tsunami 

warning system. The operational center of the international system 

is located at the National Weather Service offices in Hawaii. The 

international system was established by the Intergovernmental 

Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1965. 

While the system can detect earthquakes through a global seismic 

network, it has tsunami forecasting and warning capability only for 

locations in the Pacific. 

Tsunami preparedness requires systems to address detection and 

warning; research, education and preparedness; hazard mitigation; 

and international participation and cooperation. The U.S. tsunami 

warning program, first established in 1948, is run by NOAA 

through 2 tsunami warning centers, located in Hawaii and Alaska, 

which collate and analyze seismic data from the USGS, sea level 

data from numerous coastal monitoring stations, and pressure data 

from an array of 6 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys. 

4 

Approaches and expectations for tsunami warning and preparedness differ depending upon whether a tsunami is of a local or distant origin. The greatest risk is posed by local tsunami, which may 

give residents only a few minutes to seek safety and are more devastating in impact. Tsunami of distant origin may give residents 

more time to evacuate threatened coastal areas, but there is greater need for timely and accurate assessment of the hazard to avoid 

costly false alarms. The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) is a Federal/State partnership consisting of NOAA, 

USGS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and 

the States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. 

This program was established through Congressional action following the 1992 earthquake and tsunami off of California, for 

which no warning was issued because of outdated detection instrumentation and technology. The resulting NTHMP consists of 3 program areas: (1) warning guidance (relating to the detection system), (2) mitigation, and (3) hazard assessment. 

NTHMP’s mitigation efforts focus on preparing communities at 

risk before a tsunami strikes to lessen the impact. This includes 

educating the community, local businesses, planners, emergency 

managers and government officials on the risk of tsunami, tsunami 

hazard signs, evacuation routes, and how to recognize and respond 

to signs of an impending tsunami. In addition, under NOAA’s voluntary Tsunami Ready Program, a community is certified as ‘‘Tsunami Ready’’ based on its establishment of an emergency operations center, the ability to disseminate tsunami warnings, a tsunami hazard plan, community awareness, and the ability to receive 

multiple tsunami warnings. As of March 9, 2005, there were 16 

Tsunami ready communities located throughout the West Coast 

States and Hawaii. 

Another mitigation facet is hazard guidance, which develops inundation mapping to determine areas prone to flooding from tsunami. This goal of developing inundation maps for every at-risk 

coastal community is carried out by NOAA’s Center for Tsunami 

Inundation Mapping Efforts (TIME), which works closely with the 

States to develop mapping standards, quality control criteria, and 

certification requirements. 

Continuous improvement of tsunami warnings, mitigation, and 

hazard preparedness efforts require a coordinated research program. NOAA’s Tsunami Research Program is headquartered at the 

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington. 

The program provides research support to all aspects of the tsunami program in the U.S. This includes the continued development 

of the DART buoy system; inundation modeling for TIME; maintaining a database of tsunami events and data from these events; 

tsunami modeling at the Pacific Disaster Center and the Maui 

High Performance Computer Center; and other research related to 

the NTHMP. 

The U.S. system needs to be repaired and expanded to improve 

detection and warning accuracy, and to cover areas not currently 

included. The overall quality of the DART buoys’ performance has 

decreased 50 percent over the past 15 months. This reduced coverage impaired NOAA’s ability both to detect and warn of a tsunami and also identify costly false alarms. Strengthening reliability 

of the detection system, and further development of a real-time 

5 

two-way warning system will greatly contribute to the security and 

well-being of U.S. coastal communities. Improved mapping and 

community preparedness is also a key component of any effective 

warning system, and not all vulnerable communities have been determined to be tsunami-ready. 

On January 14, 2005, the Administration announced its plan for 

an improved tsunami warning system throughout the Pacific 

Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the mid-Atlantic Ocean, including 

increased preparedness and research activities. On January, 24, 

2005, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens introduced S. 50, the 

Tsunami Preparedness Act. The Committee reported the bill, with 

an amendment to create a coastal hazard vulnerability program on 

February 2, 2005. The Senate passed S. 50 on July 1, 2005. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 1753, the Warning, Alert and Response Network Act, would 

create a National All Hazards Alert System. The bill, as amended, 

also would provide for the creation of the Tsunami Warning Program. 

The National Alert System, created under the WARN Act, would 

ensure that regardless of where individuals are or what kind of 

communication technologies they are using, they would receive a 

life-saving alert. Alerts would be transmitted in response to all 

threats to public safety, including natural disasters, man-made accidents, and terrorist incidents. 

The WARN Act would establish a network for the transmission 

of alerts across a broad variety of communications technologies, including wireless communications devices (cell phones, Blackberries, 

etc.), the Internet, digital, analog, cable, and satellite television, 

and satellite and terrestrial radio, as well as non-traditional media 

such as sirens and ‘‘radios-on-a-stick.’’ Alerts would only be allowed 

for hazards that pose a grave risk to public health and safety. This 

would avoid over-activation of the system and individuals ignoring 

alerts (the ‘‘car-alarm’’ syndrome). 

The system would provide Federal, State, and local emergency 

managers with a tool to input alerts into the system and have 

them directed out to a geographically targeted section of the population. The legislation would require that alerts provide individuals 

with instructions on what to do in response to the threat, so as to 

trigger protective action, not panic. 

The WARN Act would establish a grant program to provide assistance to remote communities to install sirens and other devices 

to alert communities, where penetration of the telecommunications 

infrastructure may not be high, ensuring that all Americans are 

protected. 

Tsunami Preparedness 

Title II of the bill contains the text of S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, as passed by the Senate on July 1, 2005. The bill 

would authorize NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide 

maximum tsunami detection capability for the nation. The provisions of title II would create a system that builds on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion, and 

modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. 

6 

The system would include 4 components: (1) an expanded and 

upgraded detection and warning system for both the Pacific and 

the Atlantic/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico regions; (2) a modernization 

and upgrade program for the U.S. system (including immediate repair of deep ocean buoys and contractor oversight); (3) an expanded 

Federal-State Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program to improve 

community outreach and preparedness; and (4) a tsunami research 

program to develop improved detection, forecasting, and communications tools. It also would establish an Integrated Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Program focused on improving the resilience of coastal communities to natural hazards and disasters. In 

addition, the legislation directs NOAA to provide any necessary 

technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian 

Ocean. Annual appropriations of $35 million would be authorized 

for fiscal years 2006 through 2012 for the tsunami programs. Five 

million dollars would be authorized annually for the integrated 

coastal hazards program. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Warning, Alert and Response Network Act (S. 1753) was introduced by Senator DeMint on September 22, 2005, and referred 

to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. There are 7 cosponsors of S. 1753: Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Stevens, Inouye, Lott, Vitter, Landrieu, and Snowe. On October 20, 2005, the Committee considered the bill in open Executive 

Session. Senator Stevens offered an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, and Mr. DeMint offered a manager’s amendment to the 

substitute. Mr. DeMint’s amendment included tribal governments 

in the national alert system, ensured that the needs of older Americans are incorporated into the system, provided for the utilization 

of the non-commercial sustaining announcement program to publicize the national alert system, provided greater integration of the 

National Alert Office and the research and development and testing programs, and integrated communications infrastructure needs 

into the disaster planning process. The Committee, without objection, adopted the substitute and the manager’s amendments and 

ordered S. 1753 be reported as amended. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

DECEMBER 1, 2005. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1753, the National Alert 

System and Tsunami Preparedness Act. 

7 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis and Melissa Z. Petersen. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1753—National Alert System and Tsunami Preparedness Act 

Summary: S. 1753 would authorize the appropriation of $40 million a year for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2012 for a 

global tsunami warning and mitigation program administered by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The bill also would authorize NOAA to oversee the development of 

a National Alert System (NAS)—a new communications network 

for transmitting emergency information to the public—but funding 

for that program would be contingent upon the enactment of separate legislation. (That prospective funding would be provided by 

title III of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation 

Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate on November 3, 2005.) CBO estimates that implementing S. 1753 would cost $124 million over the 2006–2010 period and another $156 million after 

2010, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts for the tsunami warning and mitigation program. Enacting S. 1753 would not 

have a significant impact on direct spending. The bill would not affect revenues. The provisions in S. 1753 regarding a NAS would 

have no budgetary impact until another law is enacted to fund the 

activities. 

S. 1753 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); however, CBO estimates 

that the costs to the governmental entities would be small and 

would not exceed the threshold established in that act ($62 million 

in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). A provision in the bill also 

would compensate governmental entities for costs incurred in complying with the mandate. 

S. 1753 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA on certain licensees and permittees, including all commercial mobile service providers and nonprofit television broadcasters. 

Based on information provided by industry and government 

sources, CBO expects that the aggregate direct costs of complying 

with those mandates would be minimal compared to the annual 

threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 

million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1753 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Title II—Tsunami Preparedness 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 40 40 40 40 40 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 8 16 20 40 40 

Note.—Title I of S. 1753 would provide statutory guidelines for a National Alert System that would be funded by the Digital Transition and 

Public Safety Act of 2005, which was included as title III of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, as passed by 

the Senate. That legislation would provide $250 million in direct spending authority for such a program. 

8 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1753 

will be enacted during fiscal year 2006 and that the entire amounts 

authorized will be appropriated for each year. Estimated outlays 

are based on historical spending patterns of similar programs. 

Tsunami preparedness 

Title II of the bill would direct NOAA to establish and implement 

new programs to research, detect, monitor, and mitigate the effects 

of tsunamis in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The bill would direct the agency to upgrade and improve existing systems and data 

management efforts and would authorize it to provide technical 

and financial aid to those affected by tsunamis, including local and 

international entities. For those purposes, the bill would authorize 

the appropriation of $40 million for each of fiscal years 2006 

through 2012, including $8 million annually for pilot projects to assess the vulnerability of coastal areas of the United States. Some 

of the costs of carrying out a program for tsunami warning and 

mitigation may be offset by reimbursements from other countries 

participating in the program, but CBO estimates that such reimbursements would be less than $500,000 annually. 

National Alert System 

Title I of S. 1753 would authorize NOAA to establish a National 

Alert System, which would coordinate existing emergency communication systems and use multiple technologies for communicating 

emergency information. Under S. 1753, funding for the NAS program would be contingent on the enactment of separate legislation. 

That other legislation—the Digital Transition and Public Safety 

Act of 2005, which was included as title III of S. 1932, the Deficit 

Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 as passed by the 

Senate—would allow the Department of Commerce to spend $250 

million for a NAS program without further appropriation. 

S. 1753 would not authorize appropriations for the NAS program, 

nor would it provide direct spending authority for the activities. If 

both S. 1753 and S. 1932 are enacted, however, S. 1753 could affect 

the timing of direct spending under the authority provided by S. 

1932 because it would set statutory guidelines for implementing 

the NAS. For example, the bill would direct NOAA to certify and 

train public agencies having access to the system; reimburse broadcasters for certain expenses related to the program; and fund research and development, public outreach, and grants to remote 

communities to implement the system. Such directives could 

change the timing of program outlays if the nature of those activities differed from those that would have been undertaken by the 

department in the absence of this bill. 

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: S. 

1753 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined by UMRA. 

The bill would require public broadcasting stations to install necessary equipment to enable the reception, relay, and retransmission of alerts by the National Alert System. CBO estimates that 

aggregate costs for those stations to comply would require the National Alert Office to compensate public broadcasting stations for 

costs incurred in complying with the mandate. 

S. 1753 also would establish and implement new programs to research, detect, monitor, and mitigate the effects of tsunamis in the 

9 

Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Coastal states and local communities 

would benefit from the programs and grants authorized in this bill; 

any costs they face to participate in those programs would be incurred voluntarily. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 1753 would impose 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on certain licensee 

and permittees, including all commercial mobile service providers 

and nonprofit television broadcasters. Based on information provided by industry and government sources, CBO expects that the 

aggregate direct costs of complying with those mandates would be 

minimal compared to the annual threshold established by UMRA 

for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Section 103 of the bill would require any licensee providing commercial mobile service to make an election of whether or not they 

will participate in the transmission of National Alert System 

alerts. Currently, mobile service providers are not required to make 

this election. Thus, this provision would constitute a new enforceable duty on the private sector. 

Those providers choosing not to participate would be required to 

inform consumers at the point of sale with a clear disclosure stating that alert transmissions will not be provided by their service. 

Although not specified in the legislation, government sources have 

explained that such disclosures could take many forms such as 

written documents, contracts, signs, etc. CBO estimates that the direct costs for such disclosures would be minimal. 

Those providers electing to participate in the transmission of 

NAS alerts would be required to follow future FCC regulations and 

certify to the commission that they will follow the standards and 

protocols implemented by the National Alert Office. Due to uncertainty about future rulemaking and protocols, the direct costs of 

participating in NAS alert transmissions is unknown and those 

costs could be greater than the option of not participating. CBO assumes that those providers electing to participate in such transmission would do so because the net benefit of participating would 

be greater than that of not participating. 

Section 103 also would require nonprofit broadcasting stations to 

install necessary equipment to enable the reception, relay, and retransmission of alerts by the National Alert System. According to 

government and industry sources, most nonprofit broadcasting stations currently broadcast digital transmissions and could transmit 

such alerts by purchasing an alerts receiver. Consequently, CBO 

estimates that the aggregate costs for those stations to comply 

would be minimal. The bill also would require the National Alert 

Office to compensate public broadcasting stations for costs incurred 

in complying with this mandate. 

Previous CBO estimates: On March 17, 2005, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation on March 17, 2005. S. 50 is nearly identical to 

title II of S. 1753, which addresses tsunami preparedness programs 

to be carried out by NOAA. The estimated costs of the two versions 

of the legislation are identical except for 2006, reflecting a later assumed enactment date for S. 1753. Title II of S. 1753 is also similar 

to H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning and Education 

10 

Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Science on 

May 4, 2005. Our estimate for the House bill, transmitted on May 

12, 2005, reflected the lower authorizations levels of that version. 

On October 24, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for the 

Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, as approved by 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

on October 20, 2005. The spending authorized in S. 1753 for the 

National Alert System would be derived from a fund that would be 

created by the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, 

which was included as title III of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction 

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate on 

November 3, 2005. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and Melissa 

Z. Petersen. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa 

Ramirez-Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

The bill would provide for the voluntary participation in a national all-hazards alert system. The bill would only effect individuals to the extent that a communications technology they utilize 

participates in the National Alert System. The bill would require 

emergency management personnel seeking credentials under section 103 of the Act, to comply with regulations on the appropriate 

use of the National Alert System. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 1753 would not have an adverse economic impact on the nation’s economy. The Act would create a national all-hazards alerting system and protect citizens from the impact of tsunamis. The 

legislation authorizes the expenditure of $250,000,000 from the 

Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund in accordance with section 5 of the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would have little, if any, impact on the personal 

privacy of U.S. citizens. 

PAPERWORK

The reported bill should not significantly increase paperwork requirements for individuals and businesses. Section 104(c) of the Act 

would require the National Alert Office to submit and annual report to the President and Congress and a 5-year report to the 

President and Congress. 

11 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 101. Short title. 

Section 101 would establish the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act.’’

Section 102. National Alert System. 

Section 102 would provide for the establishment of a national 

alerting system. The section also describes the functional characteristics and capabilities of the system. It is the Committee’s intention that the system leverage and enhance the existing warning capabilities of the Federal, State and local governments. The Committee believes the system should incorporate the broadest variety 

of communications technologies, including digital and analog broadcast radio and television, cable and satellite television, satellite and 

terrestrial radio, wireless communications—including personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, and pagers—wireline communications, the Internet, as well as solutions such as sirens and indoor and outdoor alerting technologies that utilize intelligible voice 

messaging. Additionally, the system should incorporate the existing 

emergency alert system, NOAA All-Hazards Radio system, as well 

as systems deployed by State, tribal and local governments. Finally 

the legislation anticipates that technology will evolve and instructs 

that the system be designed in a manner that allows for the inclusion of new technologies in the future. 

The Committee encourages the National Alert Office to design 

the National Alert System in such a manner that the alerts transmitted across the system are capable of being retransmitted by satellite radio licensees. Additionally, the Committee encourages the 

National Alert Office to design the National Alert System in such 

a manner as to allow alerts to be retransmitted to personal computers. The personal computing industry should proactively engage 

the National Alert Office to ensure that the unique needs of the 

personal computing community are taken into account in the system’s architecture and design. Finally the Committee understands 

that traditional broadcast television and radio play a crucial role 

in alerting individuals to threats to their community. It is the expectation of the Committee that the National Alert System should 

be designed to leverage existing resources that have already been 

deployed by broadcasters for transmission of emergency alert system messages. 

Section 102(a) would establish the National Alert System. 

Section 102(b) would outline the functions of the system, which 

are to: (1) allow appropriately credentialed Federal, State or local 

officials to use the system for threats that pose an imminent risk 

to public health or safety; (2) ensure coordination with existing 

warning systems; (3) ensure that the system is designed in such a 

manner as to target alerts to a small population and avoid overalerting; and (4) ensure the system incorporates a broad variety of 

media so that the public is exposed to an alert regardless of what 

type of communications technologies they use. 

Section 102(c) would detail the capabilities of the system, which 

include: (1) the requirement that the system incorporate multiple 

technologies and be capable of incorporating future technologies; (2) 

the capability of being used by individuals with disabilities; (3) lack 

12 

of interference and incorporation of existing alert systems; (4) the 

use of multiple technology platforms such as the Internet, cell 

phones, blackberries, etc.; (5) being capable of including technologies to serve rural and remote communities; (6) the capability 

of providing alerts in languages other than English; and (7) a design to promote community preparedness and response. 

Section 102(d) would outline that the system should include alert 

mechanisms that do not require public activation and that alerts 

should be sent out over multiple communication technologies. 

Section 102(e) would direct the Director of the National Alert 

System to ensure that the National Alert System complements the 

existing Federal alerting systems, including the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) and NOAA All Hazards Radio. 

Section 102(f) would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conclude its pending proceeding on the Digital 

Emergency Alert System, would allow the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and the Governors to access EAS, and would ensure that 

EAS alerts are also transmitted in languages other than English. 

Section 103. Implementation and use. 

Section 103 would provide guidelines for the implementation of 

the system, participation in the system, and guidelines for its use. 

Section 103(a) outlines the process for credentialing emergency 

managers to use the system. Under this section the National Alert 

Office would establish a procedure to provide Federal, State, tribal, 

and local government officials with credentials access to the National Alert System to send alerts to the public. The legislation requires the head of a Federal agency to submit the names of individuals they believe need to access the system (e.g. NOAA would submit to the National Alert Office the names of meteorologists who 

need the authority to transmit alerts across the system). The governor of a State or the leader of a federally-recognized tribe would 

transmit the names of individuals who they believe need to have 

access to the system. The Committee expects that the governors 

would transmit to the National Alert Office for approval both recommendations from the various political subdivisions within their 

State and the names of officials with statewide authority. The 

Committee encourages the governors to submit the names of relevant and appropriate fire chiefs—along with other public safety 

personnel—for credentialing, so that the chiefs may continue to 

issue warnings that are within their purview. While the National 

Alert Office should give deference to the requests from the governors, there is an expectation that the requests will be limited to 

relatively senior individuals within the emergency management 

community. 

This section also would charge the National Alert Office with 

outlining what group of individuals would have credentials and 

what authority those credentials would grant. The credentials 

would be limited to the individual’s geographic area of responsibility (e.g. a meteorologist assigned to a Weather Forecast Office in 

Sterling, Virginia will not have the authority to issue an alert in 

California), as well as their subject matter area of expertise (e.g. 

an emergency manager responsible for hazardous materials response would not have the authority to issue an alert regarding severe weather). The Committee understands that emergency manVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:41 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR204.XXX SR204
13 

agement personnel are often responsible for responding to a variety 

of threats and the credentialing procedure should accommodate 

that reality. 

Finally, training would be a crucial component of the responsible 

and effective use of the system. While the system has the potential 

to save lives, its use in situations where life is not in jeopardy 

could degrade the effectiveness of the warning system. To that end, 

the legislation would require that users of the system undergo 

training to receive their credentials and periodic training to maintain their credentials. 

Section 103(b) would task the Office with outlining the class of 

events that can trigger an alert to be sent across the system. Because of the serious threat to the system posed by over-use, the Office should craft regulations that ensure that the alerts are only 

transmitted during serious emergency circumstances, and for testing the system. It is the Committee’s expectation that the Office 

would craft regulations that provide clear guidance to credentialed 

users, and the public, on when an alert will and will not be sent 

across the system. Specifically the Committee would anticipate that 

the Office may want to allow the use of alerts to publicize the provision of life-saving resources such as emergency shelter during an 

evacuation or water and ice after a disaster. 

Finally the section allows the establishment of a procedure for 

the transmission of non-critical alert information, such as traffic, 

school closure, and non-severe weather information. The transmittal of optional alerts should proceed in a manner that does not 

interfere with the transmission of emergency alerts. Additionally, 

receipt of optional alerts should require an individual to elect to receive those alerts. Alerts under this section could include emails 

distributed by a local school district, the subscription to a feebased, value-added service, or the receipt of messages on a wireless 

device which could be treated similar to other non-emergency related traffic. 

Section 103(b) would outline requirements for emergency alerts 

that would be transmitted across the system. The section would 

outline that only alerts that pose an imminent threat to public 

safety should be transmitted across the system. The section also 

would instruct the Director of the National Alert Office to promulgate regulations that outline what type of alerts may be transmitted across the system and provide guidance on the content of 

these alerts. The section also would provide that the backbone of 

the system could be used for the retransmission of alerts that do 

not deal with imminent threats to public health and safety, but any 

such alerts must be transmitted in a manner that does not interfere with an emergency alert. In addition, the section would specify 

that individuals would have to take some affirmative action, such 

as subscribing to a service, to receive these alerts. 

Section 103(c) would task the National Alert Office with designing a system that would provide a mechanism for emergency managers at all levels of government to input appropriate alerts into 

the system and have them distributed through the various delivery 

mechanisms. This could include the integration of software tools 

into disaster management and weather forecasting software, or a 

secure web portal where appropriate alerts could be entered. 

14 

Section 103(c) would require that there be multiple access points 

for emergency managers to input alerts into the system and that 

the system be redundant and secure. 

Section 103(d) would describe a two-fold process in which the 

FCC is required to initiate a proceeding, after technical standards 

have been adopted by the National Alert Office, to allow wireless 

providers to participate in the National Alert System and retransmit alerts. After the FCC issues an order, wireless providers 

would elect either to provide the alerts to all their customers, or 

not to participate. If they do not participate, they must disclose 

clearly and conspicuously at the point of sale of their devices that 

they do not participate. If participating providers want, they may 

provide mechanisms for wireless devices to allow customers to 

block most alerts from the system. The section also provides for the 

Commission to develop a procedure for carriers to withdraw from 

the system and enter at a date later than the first election. 

Finally, section 103(d)(3) would provide a mechanism for the 

FCC to institute a proceeding similar to that outlined in section 

103(d)(1) and (2) for licensees other than those covered by section 

332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)), 

who would serve significant portions of the population and would 

be logical providers of alerts through the National Alerting System. 

Section 103(d) would detail how wireless providers would elect to 

participate in the system. The section would provide a voluntary 

system where wireless providers decide whether or not they wish 

to offer their customers alerts through the National Alerting System. Under this subsection: (1) 60 days after the National Alert Office adopts the technical standards for the system, the FCC would 

initiate a proceeding to allow a commercial mobile service licensee 

to transmit System alerts and would require those who elect not 

to participate to disclose to their customers in a clear and conspicuous manner that the devices they sell would not transmit 

alerts; and (2) within 30 days of the conclusion of the FCC proceeding, wireless carriers would file an election with the FCC indicating whether or not they wish to transmit alerts. If they elect to 

participate, they would agree to do so in a manner consistent with 

the standards and protocols of the system and periodically test 

their equipment. The section also clarifies that carriers would have 

the authority to advertise that they transmit alerts and would set 

up a procedure for providers to withdraw from or enter the system 

at a later date. The section would give the carriers the authority 

to install technology in their wireless devices that would allow customers to block most alerts if they wish. This section also would 

provide the FCC with the authority to expand the class of licensees 

participating beyond just commercial mobile service to other technologies if necessary. 

Section 103(e) would build on the work of the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) pilot project which uses a portion of the bandwidth used by digital public television licensees to 

transmit alerts. This section would require such licensees and permittees to install necessary equipment for the purpose of broadcasting alerts which would then be received and retransmitted by 

the communication technologies contemplated by the Act to their 

customers. 

15 

Section 103(e) would provide for the use of digital public television towers to serve as a backbone for the distribution of alerts. 

Public television stations have agreed to segregate a portion of 

their broadcast spectrum for broadcast of Internet protocol formatted alerts, which would then be received and retransmitted by 

various communication providers. 

Section 103(f) would promote industry participation in the National Alert System by protecting participants from liability related 

to ‘‘any act or omission related to any harm from the transmission 

of, or failure to transmit’’ an alert. This protection could cover: (1) 

the transmission of, or failure to transmit, a System alert; (2) incorrect or confusing content of a System alert; (3) the failure, deficiency, or malfunction of any network, equipment, or facility of the 

provider or any other person, or the lack of coverage or network capacity in connection with the transmission or receipt of a System 

alert; (4) the failure to receive an alert because a subscriber’s service may have been suspended or discontinued for payment-related 

or similar reasons; (5) the unavailability of any network, equipment, or facility of the provider or any other person used to provide 

a System alert; and (6) a person’s election to activate a technology 

in their devices to block alerts from the National Alert System. 

To ensure that the system works appropriately, section 103(g) 

would provide for a testing regime to be administered by the Director of the Alert Office. 

Section 104. National Alert Office. 

Section 104(a) would provide for the establishment of a National 

Alert Office: (1) within NOAA; (2) led by a Director with significant 

emergency alerting experience; and (3) staffed by individuals with 

significant experience in the telecommunications industry and 

detailees from other Federal agencies. Additionally, the Committee 

stresses the need for the Office to have staff detailed to the Office 

from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, so that the concerns and expertise of 

those agencies could be incorporated in the design, management, 

and operation of the system. 

Section 104(b) would detail the functions and responsibilities for 

the Office which include: (1) the administration and operation of 

the system; (2) the implementation of the National Alert System 

Working Group’s recommendations on the technical aspects of the 

system; (3) that the Director of the Office ensure that the system 

is available only to credentialed personnel; (4) that it provide geographically targeted alerts; (5) that alerts are verified before transmission and comply with adopted protocols and standards; and (6) 

that the security of the system and the various alerts is maintained. 

Section 104(c) would require the Office to keep Congress abreast 

of its operations and plans by publishing annual reports and a 5- 

year plan. 

Section 104(d) would task GAO to audit periodically the National 

Alert Office and tasks the Alert Office to respond in its annual report to any adverse findings in the GAO audit. 

16 

Section 105. National Alert System Working Group. 

Section 105 would establish the National Alert System Working 

Group. The section would outline a procedure where a diverse 

group of experts, with extensive practical experience in their area 

of expertise, would develop detailed recommendations for the protocols and standards for the system, procedures for verifying, modifying and canceling alerts transmitted across the system, guidelines for the technical capabilities of the system as well as technical 

capabilities for priority transmittal of alerts, standards for equipment to be used by the system, and other technical issues that 

need to be addressed by the system. 

The Working Group should pay particular attention to existing 

Federal, State and local systems and the associated protocols and 

procedures, and when appropriate, build upon those systems, procedures, and protocols that have demonstrated their effectiveness. 

The Director would appoint members of the Working Group from 

3 primary groups: Federal personnel; State, local and tribal personnel; and subject matter experts from industry. It is the Committee’s expectation that all parties on the Working Group would work 

cooperatively to develop a solution that properly balances emergency management needs and technical capabilities. 

Federal Representatives 

Under section 105(b)(2) the Director would appoint representatives from Federal agencies that have significant responsibility for 

emergency management and public alerting. The Committee anticipates significant representation from the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Director also should draw upon the standards development expertise 

of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) 

when constituting the Working Group. The Committee expects that 

all agency representatives would participate fully in the Working 

Group and bring their particular expertise to the Working Group 

to ensure its effectiveness. 

State and Local Representatives 

Under section 105(b)(3) the Director of the National Alert Office 

would appoint State and local personnel with practical experience 

in emergency management. These individuals would provide important guidance on what type of capabilities the emergency management community would need to respond to a disaster. The section 

provides a mechanism for national organizations representing 

State and local governments and emergency management personnel to nominate individuals for inclusion on the Working Group. 

It is the Committee’s expectation that individuals with extensive 

practical experience would be nominated and that the Director 

would show significant deference to those nominations. 

Tribal Representatives 

Under section 105(b)(4) the Director would appoint individuals 

from tribal governments upon the recommendation of the elected 

leader of a federally recognized tribe. 

Subject Matter Experts 

Section 105(b)(5) would direct the Director to appoint subject 

matter experts to the Working Group from various sectors of the 

telecommunications industry. The Director should appoint a suffiVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:41 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR204.XXX SR204
17 

cient number of subject matter experts to ensure that there is 

broad representation of all sectors of the telecommunications industry who would be participating in the National Alert System. Specifically the Committee would expect that there be representation 

of wireless telecommunication providers, the public television stations, telecommunications hardware and software manufacturers 

and developers, manufacturers of mass notification systems using 

intelligible voice messaging, satellite radio and television, cable television, and members of the broadcast industry. The Committee 

does not intend this to be an exhaustive list and encourages the Director to appoint as many individuals as necessary to assure that 

there is the necessary expertise to ensure the effective design, development and operation of the system. 

Section 105(c) would outline the duties of the Working Group. 

While the final authority for the adoption of the recommendations 

of the Working Group would rest with the Director, it is the expectation of the Committee that the Director consider carefully the 

recommendations of the Working Group. It is also the expectation 

of the Committee that the Working Group produce a detailed and 

practical plan that can be implemented by the Director to establish 

a National Alerting System. 

Section 105(c)(2) would instruct the Working Group to work with 

the operators of nuclear facilities and other critical infrastructure 

facilities. For example, the Committee is aware that the Department of Defense and other entities use mass notifications systems 

with intelligible voice messaging over personal computing devices 

and intelligible speaker arrays to notify their personnel and the 

public at large with real-time information in an endangered area 

during emergencies. The Committee would encourage the Working 

Group to coordinate with these entities to the extent possible. 

Section 105(d) would outline the procedure for the meeting of the 

Working Group. 

Section 105(e) would ensure that the Working Group would have 

access to resources from Federal agencies and would be able to accept gifts and grants. 

Section 105(f) would outline the rules for the Working Group and 

provide it with the authority to have subcommittees. 

Section 105(g) would exempt the Working Group from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Section 106. Research and development. 

Section 106 would establish an extramural research and development program lead by the Director of the National Alert Office to 

develop the technologies necessary to enable communication providers to retransmit alerts from the system. The research and development program should focus its primary attention on developing technologies for the delivery of geographically targeted alerts 

over wireless devices. 

The Committee intends that the research and development program include a broad variety of participants in addition to participants from industry. The Committee stresses that NIST has extensive expertise that could be offered to the research and development program and would strongly encourage the National Alert Office to work with NIST to ensure their participation. 

18 

The Committee also notes that there is a lack of research into 

the content of an alert and how to draft an alert effectively so that 

its direction would be heeded by the public. Section 106(b)(2)(C) 

would provide the authority and direction to conduct a research 

program to increase the understanding of and response to warnings. The Committee encourages the Office to conduct a program 

of sociological and behavior research into the response to warnings 

and alerts to ensure the most effective response to National Alert 

System alerts. 

Section 106(b) would detail the functions of the research and development program specifying that it may include industry, government and academia, and that the research program should develop 

innovative technologies, enhance participation, improve response to 

warnings and enhance the integration of the alert system into local 

community emergency management programs. 

Section 106(c) instructs the research program to take advantage 

of the expertise of NIST. 

Section 107. Grant program for remote community alert systems. 

Section 107(a) would instruct the Administrator of NOAA to establish a grant program to provide for the installation of technologies in remote communities to ensure that they are effectively 

alerted. This could include, for example, the installation of sirens 

in rural communities or the installation of radio-receiving sirens on 

beaches to alert vacationers. 

Section 107(b) would establish the procedures for efficient management and execution of the grant program. 

Section 107(c) sunsets the program after 5 years. 

Section 108. Public familiarization, outreach, and response instructions. 

Section 108 would provide the National Alert Office with the authority to conduct a public outreach program to familiarize the public with the National Alert System. The Committee would encourage the Office to develop a program that utilizes the various outreach tools specified in the bill, as well as other tools they deem 

appropriate, in a manner that is most effective and has the highest 

impact. The Committee has no preference for any one outreach 

mechanism and encourages the Office to craft an outreach program 

that best informs the public. 

Section 109. Telecommunications infrastructure restoration, preparedness, and response. 

Section 109 outlines procedures for providing for the prompt and 

effective restoration of emergency services in the wake of a disaster 

and provides a planning mechanism to ensure that communications 

infrastructure is part of the disaster planning process. 

Section 110. Definitions. 

Section 110 defines Director, Office, National Alert System, and 

Working Group. 

Section 111. Funding. 

Section 111 would provide for funding to be made available from 

the proceeds from the auction of spectrum as provided in S. 1932, 

19 

the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. The 

Committee expects that after research and development and establishment of the system occur that NOAA would provide funding for 

the operation and maintenance of the system in their annual budget request. 

Section 201. Short title. 

Section 201 would establish that title II of the bill shall be referred to as the ‘‘Tsunami Preparedness Act.’’

Section 202. Findings and purposes. 

Section 202(a) would set forth the findings for the Act. 

Section 202(b) would set forth the purposes of the act, which are 

to: (1) improve tsunami detection, forecast, warnings, notification, 

preparedness, and mitigation in the United States and elsewhere 

in the world; (2) improve the existing Pacific Tsunami Warning 

System and expand detection and warning systems to other vulnerable States and United States territories, including the Caribbean/ 

Atlantic/Gulf region; (3) increase and accelerate mapping, modeling, research, assessment, education, and outreach efforts; (4) 

provide technical and other assistance to speed international efforts 

to establish regional tsunami warning systems in vulnerable areas 

worldwide; and (5) improve Federal, State, and international coordination for tsunami and other coastal hazard warnings, and preparedness. 

Section 203. Tsunami detection and warning system. 

Section 203(a) would direct the Administrator of NOAA to operate regional tsunami warning systems for the Pacific Ocean region 

and the region encompassing the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Section 203(b) would state that the system would consist of both 

a Pacific tsunami warning system, to cover the entire Pacific Ocean 

area, including the Western, Central, North, Eastern, South, and 

Arctic areas, as well as an Atlantic and Caribbean system. The Atlantic and Caribbean system would cover areas that the Administrator determines to be geologically active or have the potential for 

geological activity, and pose measurable risks of tsunamis for 

States along the coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of 

Mexico. The section also would state that the system would: (1) utilize an array of deep ocean detection buoys; (2) include an associated tide gauge system; (3) include any other sensors needed for 

tsunami and weather warnings and forecasts; (4) provide for cooperation between NOAA and USGS; (5) provide for information 

and data processing through the tsunami warning centers; (6) be 

integrated into United States and global ocean and earth observing 

systems, including the Global Earth Observing System of Systems; 

and (7) provide an infrastructure, building on local systems, for atrisk tsunami communities that supports rapid and reliable alert 

notices to the public. This section also would direct the Administrator to leverage assistance and assets of the U.S. Coast Guard 

and U.S. Navy in deploying and maintaining detection buoys. 

Section 203(c) would direct the Administrator to establish tsunami warning centers to provide a link between detection and 

warning systems and the tsunami hazard mitigation program, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:41 Dec 13, 2005 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR204.XXX SR204
20 

cluding the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the 

West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska. The responsibilities of these centers would include: (1) continuous monitoring of data from seismological stations, deep ocean buoys, and 

tidal monitoring stations and providing such data to the national 

tsunami archive; (2) evaluating earthquakes that have the potential to generate a tsunami; (3) evaluating other deep ocean buoy 

and tidal monitoring station data; and (4) disseminating information and warning bulletins for local and distant tsunamis. 

Section 203(d) would direct the Administrator to maintain a national and regional data management system to address the data 

requirements of the tsunami detection and monitoring system including: (1) quality control and assurance; (2) archival and maintenance of data; (3) support the integration of data from the tsunami 

observation system with data from other observation systems; and 

(4) support the development and access of data products to the assessment and adaptation programs covered in section 208. 

Section 204. Tsunami hazard mitigation program. 

Section 204(a) would authorize the Administrator to conduct a 

community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve 

tsunami preparedness in at-risk areas. 

Section 204(b) would require the Administrator to establish a coordinating committee consisting of representatives of NOAA, 

USGS, NSF, NIST, and affected coastal States and territories. This 

section envisions the inclusion of State, local and non-governmental 

entities, such as academic institutions, in the program. 

Section 204(c) would set forth the components of the tsunami 

hazard mitigation program, which would: (1) improve the quality 

and extent of inundation mapping; (2) promote and improve community outreach and education networks and programs; (3) integrate tsunami awareness, preparedness and mitigation programs 

into ongoing hazard warnings and risk management programs in 

affected areas; (4) promote the adoption of tsunami warning and 

mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal, and local government 

and non-government entities; (5) develop tsunami specific rescue 

and recovery guidelines; (6) require budget coordination through 

the Administration to ensure that participating agencies provide 

necessary funds; and (7) provide for periodic external review of the 

program. 

Section 205. Tsunami research program. 

Section 205(a) would require the Administrator to establish, in 

coordination with other agencies and academic institutions, a tsunami research program to develop detection, prediction, communication, and mitigation science and technology that supports tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would include sensing 

techniques, tsunami tracking, and forecast modeling to: (1) help determine whether an earthquake or seismic event will result in a 

tsunami, and the likely path, severity, duration and travel time of 

a tsunami; (2) develop techniques and technologies that may be 

used to quickly and effectively communicate tsunami warnings and 

forecasts; (3) develop techniques and technologies to support evacuation products; and (4) develop techniques for utilizing remote 

sensing technologies in rescue and recovery situations. 

21 

Section 205(b) would direct the Administrator, in consultation 

with other appropriate Federal agencies, to investigate the potential for improved technology for tsunami and other hazard warnings to the public. 

Section 206. Tsunami system upgrade and modernization. 

Section 206(a) would direct the Administrator to: (1) authorize 

the direct and immediate repair of existing deep ocean detection 

buoys; (2) ensure the deployment of an array of deep ocean detection buoys; and (3) ensure expansion and upgrade of the tide gauge 

network. 

Section 206(b) would set forth requirements for the Administrator in carrying out this section with respect to the transfer of 

technology, maintenance, and upgrades, including: (1) promulgating specifications and standards for forecast, detection, and 

warning systems; (2) developing and executing a plan for the transfer of technology from ongoing research to long-term operations; (3) 

ensuring the maintenance and operation of detection equipment; 

(4) obtaining priority treatment in budgeting for acquiring, transporting, and maintenance of tsunami detection system equipment; 

and (5) ensuring the integration of the tsunami detection system 

with other United States and global and coastal observation systems. 

Section 206(c) would require that before appropriated amounts 

are obligated or expended for the acquisition of services for construction or deployment of tsunami detection equipment, the Administrator must certify to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives 

Committees on Science and Resources within 60 calendar days 

after the President submits the Budget of the United States that: 

(1) each contractor has met contract requirements; (2) that constructed equipment is capable of becoming fully operational without additional expenditures of appropriated funds; and (3) that 

there are no foreseeable delays in deployment and operation. 

Section 206(d) would require that the Administrator notify the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and 

the House of Representatives Committees on Science and Resources of impaired regional detection coverage due to equipment 

or system failure, and significant contractor failures or delays in 

completing work associated with the tsunami detection and warning system. 

Section 206(e) would require the Administrator to submit an annual report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committee on 

Science, on the status of the tsunami detection and warning system. 

Section 206(f) would require the National Academy of Sciences to 

review the tsunami detection, forecast, and warning system, and 

transmit a report on its findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the 

House of Representatives Committee on Science within 24 months 

after the date of enactment. 

22 

Section 207. Global tsunami warning and mitigation network. 

Section 207(a) would require the Administrator, in coordination 

with the other members of the United States Interagency Committee of the National Tsunami Mitigation Program, to provide 

technical assistance and advice to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, the World Meteorological Organization, and other international entities, as part of international efforts to develop a fully functional global tsunami warning system. 

Section 207(b) would direct the Administrator to establish and 

operate an International Tsunami Information Center (Center) for 

all nations participating in the International Tsunami Warning 

System of the Pacific and other nations participating in UNESCO’s 

global tsunami warning system. The Center’s responsibilities would 

include: (1) monitoring international tsunami warnings in the Pacific; (2) assisting member States in establishing their own tsunami 

warning systems; (3) maintaining a library of tsunami related materials for use by the global scientific community; and (4) dissemination of tsunami related information. 

Section 207(c) would direct the Administrator to give priority to 

assisting nations in identifying vulnerable coastal areas, creating 

inundation maps, obtaining and designing detection and reporting 

equipment, and establishing communication and warning networks. 

It also states that the Administrator may establish a process for 

the transfer of detection and communication technology to affected 

nations in order to establish an international tsunami warning system and that the Administrator would provide technical and other 

assistance to support international tsunami education, response, 

vulnerability, and adaptation programs. 

Section 207(d) would prohibit the Administrator from providing 

assistance for any region unless all affected nations in that region 

participating in the tsunami warning network agree to share relevant data associated with the development and operation of the 

network. 

Section 207(e) would direct the Administrator, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to seek financial assistance from participating nations in order to ensure a fully functional global tsunami warning system. 

Section 207(f) would allow the Administrator to accept payment 

to, or reimbursement of NOAA from, or on the behalf of, international organizations and foreign authorities, for expenses incurred by the Administrator in carrying out any activity under this 

act. 

Section 208. Coastal community vulnerability and adaptation program. 

Section 208(a) would direct the Administrator to establish an Integrated Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Program focused on 

improving the resilience of coastal communities to natural hazards 

and disasters. Six areas of activity are suggested: (1) development 

of vulnerability maps for coastal communities to a wide array of potential hazards; (2) efforts to better integrate risk management 

with community planning; (3) risk management leadership training 

for public officials; (4) development of risk assessment technologies; 

(5) new data services to support the new risk management activities; and (6) new risk notification systems. 

23 

Section 208(b) would direct the Administrator to begin 3 regional 

pilot projects incorporating the activities described in section 

208(a). These projects should begin no more than one year after the 

enactment of this bill and provide regional assessments of U.S. 

coastal vulnerability to hazards associated with tsunami and other 

natural hazards or coastal disasters. Regional assessments should 

consider the social, physical, and economic impacts of such hazards. 

The assessments should also include a description of ways to enhance the resilience of at-risk communities, economic sectors and 

natural resources. 

Section 208(c) would identify the selection criteria to be used in 

picking appropriate regional pilot projects. These would include: (1) 

vulnerability to the hazards discussed above; (2) dependence on 

economic sectors and resources that may be particularly at risk; (3) 

opportunities to link and use existing risk management programs; 

(4) evidence of strong interagency collaboration in the area of risk 

management for tsunami and other natural hazards or coastal disasters; and (5) access to NOAA and other Federal programs, facilities, and infrastructure. 

Section 208(d) would direct the Administrator to submit regional 

adaptation plans to Congress 3 years after the implementation of 

the pilot programs. These plans should be based on the regional assessments discussed in section 208(b) and be developed with the 

participation of agencies at all levels of government as well as various non-governmental entities that have a stake in the pilot 

projects. The assessments should include recommendations for: (1) 

targets and strategies for addressing the hazards discussed above; 

(2) short and long term adaptation strategies; (3) Federal flood insurance programs; (4) areas that have been identified as high risk; 

(5) enhancing the effectiveness of State coastal zone management 

programs in mitigating the hazards discussed above; (6) mitigation 

incentives; (7) land and property owner education; (8) economic 

plans for small at risk communities; and (9) funding requirements 

and mechanisms. 

Section 208(e) would direct the Administrator to establish a coordinated program to provide technical planning and assistance to 

coastal States, tribes and local governments as they implement 

strategies developed under this section. This program would also 

make available to these same entities all products, information, 

tools, and technical expertise generated through the regional assessments and adaptation plans. 

Section 209. Authorization of appropriations. 

Section 209 would authorize $35 million to the Administrator of 

NOAA for each of fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2012 to carry out 

the purposes of this act. An additional $5 million would be provided 

to NOAA for FY 2006–2012 for activities carried out under section 

8, of which at least $3 million is to be used for the pilot programs 

annually. 

(24) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

SEC. 502. RESPONSIBILITIES. 

[6 U.S.C. 312] 

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall include—

(1) helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency response 

providers to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies; 

(2) with respect to the Nuclear Incident Response Team (regardless of whether it is operating as an organizational unit of 

the Department pursuant to this title (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.))—

(A) establishing standards and certifying when those 

standards have been met; 

(B) conducting joint and other exercises and training and 

evaluating performance; and 

(C) providing funds to the Department of Energy and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, as appropriate, for 

homeland security planning, exercises and training, and 

equipment; 

(3) providing the Federal Government’s response to terrorist 

attacks and major disasters, including—

(A) managing such response; 

(B) directing the Domestic Emergency Support Team, 

the National Disaster Medical System, and (when operating as an organizational unit of the Department pursuant to this title (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.)) the Nuclear Incident 

Response Team; 

(C) overseeing the Metropolitan Medical Response System; and 

(D) coordinating other Federal response resources, including requiring deployment of the Strategic National 

Stockpile, in the event of a terrorist attack or major disaster; 

(4) aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major disasters; 

(5) building a comprehensive national incident management 

system with Federal, State, and local government personnel, 

agencies, and authorities, in consultation with providers of telecommunications services (as defined in section 3(46) of the 

25 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(46))) owning or operating communications infrastructure, to respond to such attacks and disasters; 

(6) consolidating existing Federal Government emergency response plans into a single, coordinated national response plan; 

øand¿ 

(7) helping to ensure that emergency response providers acquire interoperable communications øtechnology.¿ technology; 

and 

(8) developing comprehensive mechanisms to work with and 

support critical infrastructure providers, including but not limited to providers of telecommunications services (as defined in 

section 3(46) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

153(46))), to ensure sufficient communications during a crisis or 

major disaster response. 

ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY 

ASSISTANCE ACT 

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS. 

[42 U.S.C. 5122] 

As used in this Act— (1) EMERGENCY.—‘‘Emergency’’ means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts 

and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public 

health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. 

(2) MAJOR DISASTER.—‘‘Major disaster’’ means any natural 

catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high 

water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, 

regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of 

the United States, which in the determination of the President 

causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant 

major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and 

disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, 

hardship, or suffering caused thereby. 

(3) UNITED STATES.—‘‘United States’’ means the fifty States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(4) STATE.—‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(5) GOVERNOR.—‘‘Governor’’ means the chief executive of any 

State. 

(6) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘local government’’

means—

(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local 

public authority, school district, special district, intrastate 

district, council of governments (regardless of whether the 

26 

council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; 

(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or 

Alaska Native village or organization; and 

(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, 

or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a State or political subdivision of a State. 

(7) FEDERAL AGENCY.—‘‘Federal agency’’ means any department, independent establishment, Government corporation, or 

other agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government, including the United States Postal Service, but shall not 

include the American National Red Cross. 

(8) PUBLIC FACILITY.—‘‘Public facility’’ means the following 

facilities owned by a State or local government: 

(A) Any flood control, navigation, irrigation, reclamation, 

public power, sewage treatment and collection, water supply and distribution, watershed development, or airport facility. 

(B) Any non-Federal-aid street, road, or highway. 

(C) Any other public building, structure, or system, including those used for educational, recreational, or cultural 

purposes. 

(D) Any park. 

(9) PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITY.—‘‘Private nonprofit facility’’

means private nonprofit educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent 

custodial care facilities (including those for the aged and disabled), other private nonprofit facilities which provide essential 

services of a governmental nature to the general public, and facilities on Indian reservations as defined by the President. 

(10) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term 

‘‘telecommunications service provider’’ means a provider of telecommunications service as that term is defined in section 3(46) 

of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(46)). 

SEC. 403. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE. 

[42 U.S.C. 5170b] 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Federal agencies may on the direction of the 

President, provide assistance essential to meeting immediate 

threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster, as follows: 

ø(1) FEDERAL RESOURCES, GENERALLY.—Utilizing, lending, or 

donating to State and local governments Federal equipment, 

supplies, facilities, personnel, and other resources, other than 

the extension of credit, for use or distribution by such governments in accordance with the purposes of this Act.¿ 

(1) FEDERAL RESOURCES.—Utilizing, lending, or donating 

Federal equipment, supplies, facilities, personnel, and other resources (other than the extension of credit)—

(A) to State and local governments for use or distribution 

by such governments in accordance with the purposes of 

this Act; or 

27 

(B) to assist telecommunications service providers in the 

maintenance and restoration of communications during an 

emergency or major disaster. 

(2) MEDICINE, FOOD, AND OTHER CONSUMABLES.—Distributing 

or rendering through State and local governments, the American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mennonite 

Disaster Service, and other relief and disaster assistance organizations medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, and 

other services and assistance to disaster victims. 

(3) WORK AND SERVICES TO SAVE LIVES AND PROTECT PROP- ERTY.—Performing on public or private lands or waters any 

work or services essential to saving lives and protecting and 

preserving property or public health and safety, including— (A) debris removal; 

(B) search and rescue, emergency medical care, emergency mass care, emergency shelter, and provision of food, 

water, medicine, and other essential needs, including 

movement of supplies or persons; 

(C) clearance of roads and construction of temporary 

bridges necessary to the performance of emergency tasks 

and essential community services; 

(D) provision of temporary facilities for schools and other 

essential community services; 

(E) demolition of unsafe structures which endanger the 

public; 

(F) warning of further risks and hazards; 

(G) dissemination of public information and assistance 

regarding health and safety measures; 

(H) provision of technical advice to State and local governments on disaster management and control; and 

(I) reduction of immediate threats to life, property, and 

public health and safety. 

(4) CONTRIBUTIONS.—Making contributions to State or local 

governments or owners or operators of private nonprofit facilities for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this subsection. 

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Federal share of assistance under this section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of such 

assistance. 

(c) UTILIZATION OF DOD RESOURCES.—

(1) GENERAL RULE.—During the immediate aftermath of an 

incident which may ultimately qualify for assistance under this 

title or title V of this Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq. or 5191 et 

seq.), the Governor of the State in which such incident occurred may request the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense for 

the purpose of performing on public and private lands any 

emergency work which is made necessary by such incident and 

which is essential for the preservation of life and property. If 

the President determines that such work is essential for the 

preservation of life and property, the President shall grant 

such request to the extent the President determines practicable. Such emergency work may only be carried out for a period not to exceed 10 days. 

28 

(2) RULES APPLICABLE TO DEBRIS REMOVAL.—Any removal of 

debris and wreckage carried out under this subsection shall be 

subject to section 407(b) (42 U.S.C. 5172(b)), relating to unconditional authorization and indemnification for debris removal. 

(3) EXPENDITURES OUT OF DISASTER RELIEF FUNDS.—The cost 

of any assistance provided pursuant to this subsection shall be 

reimbursed out of funds made available to carry out this Act. 

(4) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of assistance under 

this subsection shall be not less than 75 percent. 

(5) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

the enactment of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 (enacted Nov. 23, 1988), the President shall issue guidelines for carrying out this subsection. 

Such guidelines shall consider any likely effect assistance 

under this subsection would have on the availability of other 

forms of assistance under this Act. 

(6) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

(A) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—The term ‘‘Department 

of Defense’’ has the meaning the term ‘‘department’’ has 

under section 101 of title 10, United States Code. 

(B) EMERGENCY WORK.—The term ‘‘emergency work’’ includes clearance and removal of debris and wreckage and 

temporary restoration of essential public facilities and 

services. 

Æ